redjonn

is this a sort of Cas pantomime.... On no they haven't.... oh yes they have....

For me the key point would be.... if London are such a basket case how the hell can a system rate them as a B... I say basket case not as my assessment but based on the sort of commentary on here...

Yep agree. No doubts its a key benefit of having IMG involved, that doesn't distract from their spreadsheet exercise though in my mind. Never-the-less hats off to them...

yep agree but to my mind thats what a good CEO identifies and builds the appropriate organisation and skill sets. Of course within the means of financial and priorities and whether best in house or out sourced.

Did it drift away because in reality it had little impact ? I have no idea but if it was making a big difference I would not imagine it would have drifted away. For sure I think the match day experience needs to be focused on, but first the fundamentals which includes stadium facilities/food as well as improved corporate. I do think clubs some clubs seem maybe under the influence of IMG are focusing more on corporate/hospitality, which is a good idea as its been a revenue stream under utilised and brings in a wider demographic. Not saying having a band/music isn't a good idea to while away time whilst awaiting the game but its not something that gets me to the game earlier. Maybe more exciting activities happening prior to the game but not sure what....

I can see that fatigue may cause poorer technique and where higher tackling is allowed then the poor technique may result in head contact. That would be for me because of the result of muscle memory or repetition of tackle technique over the years of a players career. The instinct to tackle as you have previously and fatigue making the likelihood of poorer technique leading to a head impact. If the repetition over the years is at a lower tackle then fatigue will mean poorer technique but that would by instinct be lower and less likely to the head shot because of fatigue of the tackler. That is in the case of tackling when fatigued, the fatigue is not the underlying cause but the repetition or muscle memory of the type of tackle allowed. If having to tackle lower then even if fatigued the resulting poor technique is less dangerous to the tackled player. It is a different situation of having bigger power players coming on for the 15min stints for high impact collisions against the more energy sapped or fatigued players. Here I think is an issue with high number of interchanges.

I wasn't really being serious rather I guess implying given the focus on the risk I wondered why they weren't considering such things as game length as distinct from length of time for players or games allowed to play, etc... Plus of course as per your paragraph of past periods why not looking at some of those area's, especially interchanges and their impact of having big players come on for short periods full of energy to impact others. I guess I was being somewhat sarcastic that they aren't looking at the whole game. Anyway I'm in the camp of seeing how the game adapts and plays out on the pitch and whether it will remain a sport I want to watch. Having said that I remember not thinking that the changes to soccer in cleaning up the game from those shall we say nastier tackling players would be a game I would like to watch. As it turned out soccer is a much more attractive game to watch today and hopefully that happens to RL. 60mins with longer half time breaks... for those bands at Leigh to get more time to entertain...

Taking on your throw away comment regards reducing number of players... Given the more time playing the higher the risk... would not an option be to reduce the length of a game, particularly given that the more more tired/exhausted a player is the more likely the risk increases....

chuckle... but then again your tongue in cheek comment would apply to all the RL threads

well yes they could be... not sure about those clubs sitting on the A grade would vote to change it if it downgraded them to a B....

Possible.... but if the system is achieving what it is hoped then the whole sport and SL in particular should be leaping forward and in a stronger position. So in my logic if thats the general aim then it should be unlikely to lose A status, unless the grading are changed. Plus those clubs benefit from the extra funding versus those in championship unless that is changed. Ideally we get to a point that through whatever system, in this case IMG grading approach, that clubs in SL generate more income from other sources that the the Sky money is less a factor and hence the whole sport funding model can adapt a more whole sport approach.

Irrespective of the so called financial manipulation I thought he made good observations. It will be interesting whether the IMG grading system together with any rules around P/R that he spoke about are adjusted when the meeting he alludes to happens.

to be honest it does seem odd that a partner company given access to your financials/books is able to make such a deal, whether that be IMG or other. If RFL haven't gone to tender or something similar to sell the rights then it would seem even more odd/questionable. Irrespective of whether someone is a supporter of IMG or question IMG involvement in RL... surely it raises a flag that is worthy of questions. Although RFL are not like a public company and hence can do what they more or less want but I'm guessing its a good deal for IMG otherwise they wouldn't be doing it. I hope it's a good deal for the RFL rather than a desperate attempt at getting some monies in and IMG taking advantage.

I guess that were Leeds get it right... that is broadening the demographic via corporate/hospitality which it has done successfully over the years. To keep it on track I think its a theme of IMG to encourage other clubs to improve their corporate/hospitality premium (relatively speaking) audience.

on the area in bold and hence the 450k My question with regards to getting clarity would be why are not the individual clubs paying for the specific work to the club. if some form of central invoicing is the RFL then sub invoicing for the individual clubs if RFL are genuinely surprised and it is central invoicing to RFL for individual club work have they not got some form of checks in place against club spend... otherwise I could see clubs taking great advantage if its no cost to them - or they think no cost to them

Surely it can't be as simple as increased revenue or profit over a starting year point. You would expect it to include an increase above certain factors, like take account of inflation, take account of a trend increase, etc etc that is surely its above a certain percentage of what may happen anyway.

chuckle... on a side note your comment of toeing party line had me (strange as it may seem) think of a character in TV... Brass.... one of the characters George Fairchilds..... It was a Boss family (Hardacre) v workers family (Fairchilds) type comedy with fore-lock tugging George

Personally I would scrap Magic, but then again I've always thought that... I guess I'm more a pragmatist... Newcastle isn't available and apart from my personal choice of scrapping it I have not heard a alternative location suggestion... well some have and its been rubbished... As to toeing a party line in general... I'm a scouser that would cut off his nose to spit his face...

chuckle... maybe not a whole plan but maybe a alternative suggestion.... Newcastle ain't available unfortunately, Leeds may not be best choice on my limited knowledge. I think XYZ would be better... Never-the-less where ever it is it will a great event and with some great rugby , I remember how good XYZ magic was... can't wait to run out in a big crowd again...

mmm I can imagine boxers saying... oh this is a rubbish occasion, look that promoter is taking that fight to Vegas and our's is doing it in Leeds... what a load of rubbish every one always thinks they could do a better job... maybe I'd listen to him or them if they came out with strategic coherent framework. rather than a rant that discourages...

nope but I don't expect players to disincentive people to attend. Most marketing organisations would be looking for key people to help sell, including in a professional sport the players. Normally players help to sell the sport, even in self interest of being a keeping it a professional sport.

well if that's the case why should fans bother. Talk about helping to sell his sport.

I agree with your comment regards space around Elland Road Stadium. Their is a lot on three sides plus a very large car park. As you say making use of some of that space for a mini village, or in fact largish village using some of the concepts but bigger than what Hull KR do it could be good. In addition if some as seems to be the case think not being in short walking of City Centre is a problem then as its quite/very close you could have relay of buses back and forth. On that point their isn't many biggish stadiums in a short walking distance like Newcastle, which isn't available and Cardiff is just too big for a Magic weekend day attendance. Leeds is a big City with plenty to offer outside of the Rugby for other members of family that may not want to watch the Rugby and to make a weekend. Its capacity ain't as big of some bigger stadium but then again their always half empty. OK its not the most modern nowadays but I was their for the Aussie NZ semi and it was great. Personally it would not be my number one but then again that would not be my personal choice and we can't suit every one's personal choice, especially if some choices are not available. They could make a good fist of it at Elland Road but given negativity that abounds,,,, why should they bother as many on here have decided.

I thought it was a good idea...

and not forgetting and for me not least what my head tells me is/was Lancashire... I'm a Lancashire lad but the younger generation of the family keep telling me I'm from Merseyside,,, I have to talk with a T in front of words to prove I'm not... as in "I'm off T pub".... "T chippy", or as they say "out T mind"....